Sunday, August 23, 2009

This is the third in a series that led them to try to declare me insane,hmmm

POOR OLD REDACTED

Legal Hell, CA

In Propria Persona

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA,

Plaintiff,

vs.

POOR OLD REDACTED,

Defendant
Case No. 8CA10541

MOTION FOR PROSECUTION TO FUND INVESTIGATION NECESSARY TO THE DEFENDANT’S RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL
AND TO BE ALLOWED COUNSEL WITHOUT A CONFLICT OF INTEREST OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE TO BE ALLOWED FURTHER INVESTIGATION FUNDED BY THE PROSECUTION AS TO ALLOW AN INVESTIGATION THAT ENSURES ANY SEMBLANCE OF A FAIR TRIAL AND TO CONFIRM IMPROPRIETY ON THE PART OF THE PROSECUTION AND THE DEFENSE THUS FAR. AND REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL RECOGNITION OF FAIR AND EQUITABLE CONSIDERATION, THE IMPROPRIETY RESULTING FROM JUDGE VILLAR’S ANTIPATHY TO THE DEFENDANT’S RIGHTS TO COUNSEL SHOULD ALSO BE NOTICED AS EVIDENCED BY HER ALLOWING MR. HOWARD WILLIAMS TO WITHDRAW UNDER FALSE PRETENSES.

TO: LOS ANGELES CITY ATTORNEY AND/OR HIS REPRESENTATIVE, AND THE CLERK OF THE SUPERIOR COURT:
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on August, 2009, or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard in the above-entitled court, the Defendant herein, In Propria Persona, will and hereby does move the court to move the court to allow the prosecution to fund an investigation that prevents further injustice .
NOW COMES your Defendant, POOR OLD REDACTED, and moves the Court to grant her the funds demanded for an in pauperis defendant who has been entangled in a sordid and malicious prosecution and must ensure that she is not railroaded to further the base ambitions of Detective Gregozek, Ms. Jennifer Waxler et al.

I.CONFLICTS OF INTERESTS AND APPEARANCES OF IMPROPRIETY
POOR OLD REDACTED was told by a Public defender with the name Patel that a conflict of interest existed between the defendant and the public defenders office. This has been documented in a hearing with Judge Georgina Riczik. Grateful yet distressed by this knowledge the defendant sought civil representation and in the midst of doing so was convinced by a certain Howard L. Williams that she must have criminal representation, that he would show what a “farce this was” and then a civil suit could begin where all the guilty parties would be held accountable. Unfortunately, this wasn’t the truth and Mr. Williams took the 4,000 dollars for no discernible purpose and in the end was seen laughing with the prosecution and wishing them good luck as he was miffed that the defendant had caught him committing malpractice.

A contract should acknowledge that the attorney's professional responsibility may require that he or she decline representation in certain cases because of conflicts of interest or other ethical considerations. The attorney should be required to establish a system for screening new appointments upon intake to discover such cases and to immediately notify the affected client and move to be relieved as counsel. The attorney should also be required to adopt a uniform method for determining which client(s) to accept in situations in which the attorney must decline representation of one client while seeking relief from further representation of another. In no event should the contract provide for any financial disincentives against identifying and declaring conflicts of interest.
The Prosecutor is serving masters other than those of Truth and Justice
In my case, this Threat Management Unit has made it very clear that there is to be only a one sided “investigation” and the fact that so much documents exist that they haven’t seen fit to include in the affidavit to obtain the warrants or anywhere for that matter shows a pattern of deception and omission that should concern the People of the State of California etc. As seen in this article (Exhibit 1)and this this (Exhibit 2) unit it can be deduced is doing a favor for Lavely and Singer rather than a proper police Investigation to protect the citizens of this state as evidenced by statements to my mother, “What can I do? You sued them didn’t you “ after she called this Unit as she couldn’t believe this was really happening in her beloved country. This goes directly to the very troubling timelines. I attempt to regain some relief civilly , criminal charges, my sister excercises her right to sue Notaro for Defamation and gets a tentative ruling not even based on anything to be found in the court file( It is being appealed.) and very soon thereafter more criminal charges are brought . The nature of these charges and how they possibly could have been approved is still unknown but the timing I submit shows a clear circumstancial link between Lavely and Singers’s bidding and the behaviors of the Detectives in this unit. I even believe that the police report does not show an accurate date (August 1) and believe that it is in the interest of justice to investigate if this was “back dated” because it doesn’t make any sense that I supposedly “target and harass” this Martha Kelly, and according to Mathilde Notaro I talk of “firearms.” And Ms. Kelly doesn’t see the need to report this to the police immediately but rather Notaro reports it to them 16 days later and the charges are filed on 8-25 after I sued Notaro. Notaro has never shown the slightest of druthers when it comes to dialing 911 for no logical purpose. In fact she seems to relish such activity, and this 16 day interval will further implant disgust and doubt into the jury. The complete lack of any evidence of a genuine investigation by Det. Gregozek or any one in law enforcement( as far as discovery tendered so far) The constitutional right to counsel entitles a defendant to conflict free representation by an attorney who is "not attempting to serve two masters." (Wood v Georgia (1981) 450 U.S. 261, 271; Culyer v Sullivan (1980) 446 U.S. 335.) Conflicts of interest can arise in a multitude of situations in addition to the typical multiple defendant case; for example, where the "victim" or prosecution witness is a current or former client. (E.g., see Laversen v Superior Court (1983) 34 Cal.3d 530.) These and other situations documented in ethics codes and case law require careful attention. Lavely and Singer represented the head of the founder of this Unit, a Robert Martin, in a case against a publisher and It is my unerring conviction that barring the presence of Lavely and Singer this case would long ago have been resolved in a way that would produce such a trail of indecency and liability. There are other links that can’t be overlooked. For instance: Mary Lou Villar is the mayor’s Sister. The mayor and the Governor are closely entwined. The Governor appointed The Honorable Villar to the Bench and his lawyer is…. Marty Singer ... from Lavely and Singer. That alone should force the recusal of Judge Villar and allow me a 170.6 motion if the next Judge is similarly entangled.
It is the defendant’s and others conviction that Ms. Sievers’s handwriting is literally all over this case and that Ms. Waxler is simply out to please her masters—whom in this case are not truth and justice

See Handwriting samples and Domestic Violence order.
The same handwriting can be found all over the documents related to the restraining order and this void criminal domestic violence protective order and a handwriting sample should be sought by Sievers and Notaro or whomever this handwriting belongs to. As should signatures samples be taken as the signatures on the restraining orders vary to an extraordinary degree and the e-mail sent to Sievers to Notaro with the perjury ridden affidavit very well might indicate that Sievers signs it all herself which is not allowed as she didn’t ultimately represent her in the hearing and in matters regarding restraining orders Notaro herself must sign
My case is not one that will cast indigent defense in positive light (and light will be cast. There will I’m sure be a desire to cast me as “difficult” but my verbosity and intensity of purpose pays off here ie. Emails will show a grateful and humble person who just wants to not be railroaded by immoral and reckless individuals, as had occurred in the sham restraining order hearing under Gerald Rosenberg of the Santa Monica Courthouse. I held an idealistic notion about the public defenders office and to put it as succinctly as possible—that notion is dead. I won’t go into detail here but it has been a disaster and not because of my behaviors but of theirs and that can be shown through documentation etc.
The judge said on July 29th that it only shows I don’t get along with my lawyer. In a decent and rational universe, Judge Villar would have looked at the documentation and be compelled to mercilessly castigate Howard Williams for his malpractice but the decent universe concept seems a bust when you are dealing with players like Marty Singer, Allison Sievers, The mayor, The governor, and the City of Los Angeles against POOR OLD REDACTED, (indigent pro per due to circumstances that she is not to blame for. )
Well, she should be doing better about this indigency issue but she is not to blame for the fact that the Public Defender for reasons not entirely clear have expressed a “conflict of interest” and then recanted this at a later date. I can cite the Barboza decision as I believe that Detective Gregozek is doing this for financial incentive(i.e an alliance with Lavely and Singer could mean big bucks in the security business down the line or even now) but enough to be shown here should convince any court that Ms. POOR OLD REDACTED would be foolish to be at the mercy of such biased overseers.
People v Barboza, supra, 27 Cal.3d 375, teaches that the financial terms of a contract can provide great potential for conflicts of interest in the form of financial disincentives to quality representation. In that case, the contract public defender was, in effect, rewarded for not declaring conflicts of interest by receiving at the end of the year the funds budgeted for fees in conflict cases.
Other contract terms, such as those noted in the above guideline, create similar financial disincentives that place the attorney's interests in conflict with his or her clients.
Comment:
Neil Spector, an investigator working for the PD, not only appears to have falsified statements but made it very clear that this case was too small for so much work and that he was annoyed by having to do this and the fact that now Julius Quinn Roberts says that he was never contacted by Mr. Spector but in fact contacted Mr. Spector only to be ignored indicates that there is the mind set that if it’s not a murder or rape but a misdemeanor with informal diversion as a plea than justice is not as pressing. This is an understandable position and the defendant sympathizes with those wrongly accused who face more punitive outcomes if wrongly convicted but in my case it is just not acceptable on a personal or political level to see a system where the innocent are caught in such a hapless limbo. I am dealing with adversaries that are committing felonies and I must do what I can to preserve my rights as I see that they are hard won. Since rights seem so hard fought, I’ll include as an exhibit what the public defender was mandated to do and it should be obvious how they failed. As exhibit two I will include the ethical standards required by Judges when Pro Per parties are in front of them
August 12, 2009
Signed,

ShareThis

Lijit Search Wijit

Easy to install, but does not track all possible stats. Most often used in sites which do not allow javascript to be inserted.
Advertise with GoStats
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------